This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Sandra Ellis' appeal of the dismissal of her wrongful discharge suit against Office Max and four employees. The Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal. It notes that Ellis' opening brief contends she did not receive the defendants' motion to dismiss, but that issue is not properly before the Court because she did not amend her notice of appeal. The Court also does not address Ellis' claim in her reply brief that the motion was meritless, as that argument was not raised below or in her opening brief. The Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the district court and dispenses with oral argument.
Maverick Taylor v. William Curry, Sergeant John Doe, An Unknown Officer Now Known As James Jack Smith of The City of Fayetteville Police Department, 17 F.3d 1434, 4th Cir. (1994)
This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Sandra Ellis' appeal of the dismissal of her wrongful discharge suit against Office Max and four employees. The Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal. It notes that Ellis' opening brief contends she did not receive the defendants' motion to dismiss, but that issue is not properly before the Court because she did not amend her notice of appeal. The Court also does not address Ellis' claim in her reply brief that the motion was meritless, as that argument was not raised below or in her opening brief. The Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the district court and dispenses with oral argument.
This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Sandra Ellis' appeal of the dismissal of her wrongful discharge suit against Office Max and four employees. The Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal. It notes that Ellis' opening brief contends she did not receive the defendants' motion to dismiss, but that issue is not properly before the Court because she did not amend her notice of appeal. The Court also does not address Ellis' claim in her reply brief that the motion was meritless, as that argument was not raised below or in her opening brief. The Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the district court and dispenses with oral argument.
This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Sandra Ellis' appeal of the dismissal of her wrongful discharge suit against Office Max and four employees. The Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal. It notes that Ellis' opening brief contends she did not receive the defendants' motion to dismiss, but that issue is not properly before the Court because she did not amend her notice of appeal. The Court also does not address Ellis' claim in her reply brief that the motion was meritless, as that argument was not raised below or in her opening brief. The Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the district court and dispenses with oral argument.
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SANDRA E. ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE MAX, INCORPORATED; SCOTT LYNCH; KEN STERN; TERRY VAUGHN, No. 99-2595 Defendants-Appellees, and MATT HEFFNER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-390-3-MU) Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 20, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL N. Clifton Cannon, Jr., Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant. W. T. Cranfill, Jr., Bruce M. Steen, Robert B. Meyer, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Sandra E. Ellis appeals from the dismissal of her wrongful discharge suit against Office Max, Inc. and four of its employees. We affirm. Ellis' opening brief contends that she never received the Defendants' motion to dismiss. This issue was first raised in a motion for reconsideration, which Ellis filed after noting her appeal. Because she has not amended her notice of appeal, the issue of whether she received the Defendants' dispositive motion is not before us. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Ellis' reply brief reiterates her claim that she never received the Defendants' motion and further argues that the motion was meritless. We do not address the latter claim, because it was not raised below or in Ellis' opening brief. See Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539, 547 n.9 (4th Cir. 1999); Skipper v. French, 130 F.3d 603, 610 (4th Cir. 1997). For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Maverick Taylor v. William Curry, Sergeant John Doe, An Unknown Officer Now Known As James Jack Smith of The City of Fayetteville Police Department, 17 F.3d 1434, 4th Cir. (1994)